Blog

Recently,
Robert Joustra wrote about secularism, religion, and the
establishment of Canada's Office of Religious Freedom. The 21st
century has witnessed increasing conflict between secularism and
religion, most notably against “political Islam,” though
certainly in Canada and the United States, political Christianity has
gained greater influence. Joustra examines secularism and religion
and its role in Canadian foreign policy. He begins by reminding his
readers that religion is “essentially contested,” it is a concept
“so value-laden that no amount of argument or evidence can lead to
one single, standard, or correct use.” Within foreign policy it is
no less contested and, Joustra argues, decision-makers must better
comprehend secularism and religion and the purpose of Canada's Office
of Religious Freedom. There are two dominant perspectives of
secularism's influence on the West today, laïcité and
Judeo-Christian secularism. Together, these represent “an
understanding of democratic secular politics which flourishes
exclusive
of
any religious tradition on the one hand, and an understanding
sustained in continuity with and intrinsic
to
a specific [religious] tradition.”

Laïcité
presents religion as an intellectual construct that must not have an
influence on our political and social institutions. Faith exists as
an individual belief, clearly removed from secular society. For
supporters of laïcité, such as the Globe
and Mail's
Doug Saunders, “the core values of our common culture, the things
that make us Western and modern – democracy, equality, the rule of
law – were forged through the rejection of religion and the
overthrow of spiritual authority.” In contrast, Judeo-Christian
Secularism posits that religion is indivisible from an understanding
of our political and social institutions. This perspective reminds
us of the historical connection between our modern, secular political
and legal institutions to the legacy of Western religious values and
beliefs. As Elizabeth Shakman Hurd explains, Judeo-Christian
Secularism is when “Judeo-Christian tradition is perceived as the
fount and foundation of secular democracy.” In short, these two
understandings of Western secularization should be carefully
considered when approaching religion and international affairs.

Given
these contradictory approaches, Joustra writes that “the
responsibility of post-secular states should be, must
be,
to defend the values and principles of their constitutions without
monopolizing the logic or rationale (religious or otherwise) by which
actors arrive at them. .... What the state must never do is
monopolize the logic of why
the
universal values and rights it protects should be sustained.” In
this way, the Office of Religious Freedom becomes
an important tool for Canada to express internationally its
commitment to the values of democracy and equality without
necessarily imbuing it with any religious or secular intent. In
effect, Joustra argues that Canadian policy must be free of any
particular belief system so that Canada can construct a true
consensus on human rights, regardless of their origin in secularism,
Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hinduism, or any set of political and
religious beliefs.

All
of this leads us to explore how secularism and religion interacted in
Canadian history. For the majority of its history, Canada was
profoundly influenced by the religious faith of its citizens and its
religious institutions.

For
example, in the years after Confederation, Catholic Quebec was a
staunch supporter of the John A. MacDonald's Conservative Party.
Despite a brief term with Alexander Mackenzie in the 1870s, Liberals
could not defeat MacDonald's Conservatives without the support of
French Canada. The opposition Liberal Party was tainted as supporting
“Liberal Catholicism,” a dangerously liberal perspective that
supported limiting the power of the Catholic Church – an idea
completely antithetical to the Catholic hierarchy in Quebec. Only
after a young Member of Parliament, Wilfrid Laurier, delivered a
speech in 1877 declaring that “Liberal Catholicism is not political
liberalism” did Quebec begin to swing its support towards the
Liberals. Laurier implicitly assured Catholics that the Liberal
Party would not interfere in matters of religion, emphasizing the
secular nature of his party's policies. Eventually, after a host of
other events, Laurier became Prime Minister with the support of
Catholic French Canada in 1896. Understanding French Canada's
Catholicism and allowing the Catholic Church free rein in Quebec was
a crucial aspect of governing the country or, for that matter,
winning elections. Even still, Catholicism served as a foundation for
generations of Quebec liberal and conservative intellectuals, from
nationalists like Henri Bourassa and Abbé Lionel Groulx to Prime
Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Protestantism
would have an equally powerful influence on English Canada. There are
many prominent examples, but perhaps one of the most interesting is
the religious origins of the modern day New Democratic Party (NDP).
Many know that its predecessor was the democratic socialist party,
the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). Fewer realize that
its first leader, J. S. Woodsworth was a part of the social gospel
movement of early 20th century Canada. The men and women of the
social gospel movement believed that the word of God had to be
applied to economics and politics, effectively moving religion into
the secular realm. The social gospel gave moral legitimacy to the
economic and political demands of these groups and placed their
politics in the light of a God-given duty. Its most radical
supporters, including Woodsworth, even questioned the morality of the
capitalist system. This led them to political alliances with social
democratic parties, such as the Progressive Party of Canada or the
United Farmers, a waning political force of disenchanted progressives
who won provincial elections in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta in the
1920s. Eventually, the crisis of the Great Depression pushed
progressives to form the CCF. Former Baptist Minister Tommy Douglas
would lead the Saskatchewan CCF to victory and serve as Premier from
1944 to 1961, when he went on to lead the newly formed federal NDP in
Ottawa. In 2013, the NDP is hardly considered a religious political
party, but it is still advocating some of the same ideas of its
social gospel forerunners.

Like
most of the Western world, secularization became more prevalent in
Canada following the Second World War. Many historians have
understood this transformation as a natural outcome of the forces of
modernization, which they argue inevitably led to secularization. The
domination of the “modern world,” with its urbanized, educated,
and increasingly wealthier citizens, diminished the relevance of
Christian institutions and religion as a whole in Western society.
In Canada, both English and French Canadians turned away from
religion in the turbulent years of the 1960s. In English Canada,
“liberal nationalism” trumpeted Canada's liberal values and a
historical and cultural identity separate from its former colonial
motherland of Great Britain. The division of Church and State was
more stark as immigrants with different (and non-Christian) beliefs
filtered into the country. For Liberal-Nationalists, laicism was
codified through legislation on abortion, divorce law and
homosexuality, or the irreligious Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Epitomized in the Government of Prime Minister Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, Canada allegedly became multicultural, bilingual and
more secular. In Quebec, the “Quiet Revolution” rejected the
dominance of the Catholic Church, a rule that had lasted more than a
century. The “new” Quebec and its citizens quickly pushed the
Church outside the political and social spheres as well. By the
1970s, modern, secular Canada had been formed.

Previously,
historians have described religious institutions as conservative,
traditional, and unable to adapt to the modern world. Today
historians are more aware of the rise of individualism in Western
society and its impact not just on the growth of secularism, but even
among the faithful. The individualization of religion did not
automatically mean giving up your faith or support for religious
institutions. Similarly, Canadian historians have began to offer a
more nuanced approached to the rise of secular society in Canada.
Michael Gauvreau and Olivier Hubert write that the Church did not
retreat when confronted with modernity, rather when facing new social
and political realities, they moved to “[enhance] their social
relevance and authority.” It was through reacting to modernity,
rather than ignoring it, that religion lost its social currency in
Canadian life.

Today,
social evangelicals have gained political influence with the merger
of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives in 2003. The
“new” Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper has
an element of social conservatism, formed from social evangelical
voters who advocate for socially conservative policy changes.
Canada's history demonstrates that religious politics is not a new
development. But, like Joustra suggests for Canadian foreign policy,
the Canadian government should continue to be secular, but not
anti-religious. Though many Canadians today disagree with the
religious views of their fellow citizens, it is not the government's
place to suppress or support them, but rather continue to ensure
there is an avenue for them to be expressed.

This
is especially important regarding debates over issues that touch on
religious beliefs, such as abortion. Conservative MPs like Mark
Warawa or Stephen Woodworthcontinue to push for discussion about the
morality of abortion in the House of Commons. While many find the
debate over abortion distasteful or regressive, democracies must
allow for the free expression of opinion, be it secular or religious,
and the citizens of the nation can decide their value. As Joustra
reminds us, Canadian philosophers Jocelyn Maclure and Charles Taylor
argue that if a secular set of beliefs become as dominant as
religious ones – effectively a civil religion – then all citizens
who are members of religions become second-class citizens. The Canada
of 2013 has moved past such failures. The Office of Religious Freedom
has its critics and it remains to be seen if it can fulfill the
purpose its supporters claim, but at least it could be a step in the
right direction.